The Central Government and the State Governments have schemes in place providing for compassionate appointments. When a government servant dies while in service (i.e., before retirement) or retires on medical grounds, his or her dependant family member can make an application to the concerned authority to gain employment on compassionate grounds. However, the application has to be filed within the stipulated time and the prescribed eligibility criteria have to be fulfilled before the appointment can be granted. For instance, the government servant’s family should require immediate financial support for reasons such as medical treatment, re-payment of a home loan to avoid dispossession, etc. It is pertinent to note that different states have their own rules and regulations, hence, the criteria, procedure, and other aspects vary from state to state.

Courts across the country including the apex court have made some relevant observations about compassionate appointments in the past while analyzing various facets and allowances under the scheme. The Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reiterated that “compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services” and held that a married daughter cannot be held to have been dependent on her deceased mother after assessing the financial situation of her family.

The Allahabad High Court in Smt. Santoshi Vs. State of UP & Ors., held that a widow appointed on compassionate grounds cannot be removed from service on account of her remarriage which is a personal choice and a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. held that a daughter of a deceased government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment irrespective of whether she is married, single, divorced, or widowed, and discrimination on said grounds is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The court remarked that “the perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father’s household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband’s household, is an outdated view and mindset”.

And recently, the Supreme Court in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [CA No.5944 of 2022 (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1154)] held that the appointment of heirs of retiring and/or superannuating employees is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the award passed by the Industrial Court directing the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika to make such appointments.

The division bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that such appointments have to be provided after due assessment of various factors including the financial standing of the deceased employee’s family, etc. Also, it was stated that appointments made on compassionate grounds are not “automatic” and are provided only in exceptional circumstances.

The case traces back to the year 1979 when the Union formed by the employees of Ahmednagar Municipal Council raised an industrial dispute regarding the grant of employment to the employees’ legal heirs. Several demands were raised by said Union, one of which pertained to giving appointments to heirs of employees on their retirement. Consequently, it was agreed by the Municipal Council and later, decided by the Industrial Court through an order dated 30^th March 1981 that if the employees in the Class-IV category die before retirement, become invalid or retire, then their heirs have to be provided with a compassionate appointment.

Then, the Ahmednagar Municipal Council was reconstituted as the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika in 2003, thereby bringing its employees within the ambit of the schemes of the State Government. After the reconstitution, two more complaints were filed by the Union in 2005, seeking employment for heirs of retired employees. Accepting the Union’s contentions, the Industrial Court passed awards dated 16^th September 2016 and 21^st September 2016 directing the Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika to comply with its judgment dated 30^th March 1981.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the Municipal Corporation (Mahanagar Palika) filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which were dismissed. Subsequently, appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

The main issue was whether the heirs of the employees of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika were eligible for compassionate appointment upon the employees’ retirement and/or superannuation.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court specified that upon due conversion of the Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation, the award passed by the Industrial Court in 1981, was no longer applicable and the employees of the Municipal Corporation were governed by the scheme framed by the State Government “at par with the government employees”. The respondent’s contentions were dismissed since the State Government’s scheme on compassionate appointments did not include retirement and/or superannuation as grounds for appointing employees’ legal heirs.

Further, it was asserted that such an appointment is contrary to the very object of compassionate appointments and also infringes upon the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court added that if such appointments were provided, then “those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”

Compassionate appointments are provided by the government to ensure that the government servant’s dependant family members do not become destitute. Due to the nature of the appointment, it is subject to certain conditions and is provided as an exception. In a catena of cases, courts have emphasized the importance of considering the financial position of the family to determine the applicant’s eligibility and have also held that discrimination in granting compassionate appointments on grounds of marriage, divorce, remarriage, etc. is unconstitutional. Hence, the applications have to be viewed holistically in deciding whether a compassionate appointment can be granted or not.